Breaking the Mirror

When a new game is released, I try like many of my colleagues to talk intelligently about my impressions based on abstract but meaningful concepts of narrative structure, gameplay mechanics or world building. Eventually I toss in a passing aside to the relative quality of the visual engine as though it were itself an afterthought. I do this because to dwell to long on the visual qualities of a game is like asking whether your blind date is hot -- it's shallow, a little tacky and reveals you as just another mouth-breather in a world of skin-deep beauties.

The reality is, however, that video gaming is primarily a visual medium. To avoid the topic is akin to trying to describe a painting without talking about color, texture or visual interpretation. No one ever said of the Mona Lisa that it smelled nice. I understand, and have long shared the mantra that gameplay is king, and perhaps it is, but if so then graphics are its queen. If I may abuse a chess metaphor for a moment, the game is certainly lost without the king, but much of the time it is actually won with the queen.

The problem is not when we judge video games based on their visuals. The problem is those who assume that graphic awesomeness is measured in polygons. In fact, I think if we accept how vital the visual component of gaming is, then we've actually made the job of game makers much harder.

Visuals are the sensual gateway for a player. It is how you will interpret the world into which you are thrust, and it will be the primary vehicle for interaction. Even a music game like Rock Band or Guitar Hero relies as much if not more on the visual beat cues as it does on the music being played. But, it is a common mistake to assume that a successful visual presentation is built on the back of advanced technology. The skill of programming advanced visual engines and the skill of making compelling visual landscapes are not the same.

What good is technology to me if it doesn't create a world or gamespace that stirs my imagination?

Skip to the end — the worst sin a game can commit is dullness, which is why I think a game like Geometry Wars or even Psychonauts is in every meaningful way better looking than a Fallout 3 or Resistance 2. I ache for the end of gaming’s obsession with realism, and long for the industry’s Claude Monet, Salvador Dali or Pablo Picasso.

I don’t want to flirt too strongly with the video-games-as-art-debate, and I definitely don’t want my next game to be set at some Victorian lakeside picnic or in a desert of melting timepieces, at least not without a good video game conceit for being there which probably has to do with blowing stuff up. My point is simply that art direction can and usually will trump technology, which is why I think a game like World of WarCraft has better visuals than Everquest II.

There, I said it.

Game developers have at their disposal systems that are nearly magical compared to just a dozen years ago. My impression, however, of a new game is rarely improved by virtue of technology alone. The naïve desire for photorealism in games, which has been virtually achieved, needs to be set aside as the gold standard. I’ve seen the real world successfully realized in game form and frankly this muddied mirror was not nearly as inspiring as I might have originally hoped.

Dazzle me, game developers and art designers. Show me something I’ve never seen before, whether set in the scale of the galactic or mundane. Stop wasting time seeing if you can pack a few dozen more polygons into the architecture of a bus stop and instead paint the unexpected. As I looked recently on the artwork leaked from Warren Spector’s studio and their daring direction for a Disney game, of all things, I stopped and marveled. If they achieve even part of this vision it will likely be a spectacular visual achievement regardless of how many layers or models are shoved into a given frame.

I am, frankly, encouraged by the trends of late. A game like Braid which was completely captivating as a visual masterpiece deserves, I think, greater praise than Gears of War 2 or its ilk. If I never see a smattering of red on the gray and brown desolation of post-apocalyptia in any form, then I may die a much happier man for it. I love action and shooters as much as the next sociopath, but I’m ready to take that game to a more interesting place.

Gritty realism isn’t why I play video games anymore. Maybe it was once, probably back when such a thing wasn’t really possible. You have the power to create worlds. Why would you just make one that already exists?

Comments

Glad to see that your demise at the paws of Molerats was greatly exaggerated. Well written! You encapsulated my own thoughts on the manner quite nicely, though I tend more towards believing the graphics tone and timbre should represent the theme of the game.

Sometimes that means bright and colorful and unique, and in the case of Fallout 3; bleak and grey. Though in that last game I wish they would mix it up a little. I would assume that after so much post nuclear time, something green would be growing. Somewhere. That juxtaposition would be jarring and therefore meaningful when you fight to protect that one bright, green corner of the wasteland.

But the trend should be to presenting us something new; Trine I thought was beautiful. Same with Braid. Gears 2 - bleh.

Also: "...much of the time it is actually won the queen." Missing words much?

**edited for clarity

Sometimes that means bright and colorful and unique, and in the case of Fallout 3; bleak and grey. Though in that last game I wish they would mix it up a little.

I think mixing it up a litte is what is missing -- that touch of creativity that does more than I expected. Frankly, I think they address this somewhat in the DLC released over the past year or two.

Also: "...much of the time it is actually won the queen." Missing words much?

What are you talking about. You're crazy. Crazy!

I often find graphics to be the least interesting part of a game for a lot of the reasons that you mentioned. When I play a game I'm less interested in superior graphics than I am in a consistent visual style that brings something interesting to the table. However many polygons and textures went into their respective engines, Majora's Mask has better graphics than Gears of War, and Windwaker remains one of the most beautiful games I've seen.

If anything, the more realistic the graphics are in a game the less convinced I am by them. For all of the hype about Crysis and its graphics (which are, admittedly, impressive), I can't get past the way the player floats through the underbrush rather than having it bend around him. Dead Space would have been more impressive if they had reallocated some of the processing power spent on additional texture passes to properly modeling blood in zero gravity.

HedgeWizard wrote:

Sometimes that means bright and colorful and unique, and in the case of Fallout 3; bleak and grey. Though in that last game I wish they would mix it up a little. I would assume that after so much post nuclear time, something green would be growing. Somewhere. That juxtaposition would be jarring and therefore meaningful when you fight to protect that one bright, green corner of the wasteland.

What about the cult of tree-worshippers in the north end of the Wasteland? They lived in a pretty woodland glen.

Then I killed their god! Mua ha ha ha haaaaa!

I'm not going to grant you that games are a fundamentally visual medium. I'd say they are much more fundamentally interactive, but that we are a visually-oriented culture (if not a generally visually-oriented species).

I also refuse to state that you are "just another mouth-breather in a world of skin-deep beauties."

You're right about the obsession with verisimilitude, though. Culturally, we mostly learned to move past that focus a long time ago, and newer media learned from older media that recreating objective reality is not only a fool's errand, but a very limiting goal at the same time. In painting, for example, it's not only useless to try to escape the constraints of a frame that marks the edge of a painting's context, but such escape attempts also distract a painter from learning to use the limits of the canvas as a tool for both composition and meaning.

Besides, if I wanted reality, I'd go outside.

Clemenstation wrote:
HedgeWizard wrote:

Sometimes that means bright and colorful and unique, and in the case of Fallout 3; bleak and grey. Though in that last game I wish they would mix it up a little. I would assume that after so much post nuclear time, something green would be growing. Somewhere. That juxtaposition would be jarring and therefore meaningful when you fight to protect that one bright, green corner of the wasteland.

What about the cult of tree-worshippers in the north end of the Wasteland? They lived in a pretty woodland glen.

Then I killed their god! Mua ha ha ha haaaaa!

Haven't been there yet... New quest. Ding!

I think the King/Queen chess metaphor for graphics and gameplay is absolutely perfect. And yes, I too think that World of Warcraft is a far better looking game than Everquest II. Technical prowess should definitely be aimed for, but fantastic art direction will trump it every time.

Elysium wrote:

My point is simply that art direction can and usually will trump technology, which is why I think a game like World of WarCraft has better visuals than Everquest II.

All things being equal, doesn't this mean you should be digging AoC over WoW? Of course 11 million does not equal 300,000, so I digress.

My point is simply that art direction can and usually will trump technology, which is why I think a game like World of WarCraft has better visuals than Everquest II.

There, I said it.

Oh wow! How very controversial.

Nevin73 wrote:
Elysium wrote:

My point is simply that art direction can and usually will trump technology, which is why I think a game like World of WarCraft has better visuals than Everquest II.

All things being equal, doesn't this mean you should be digging AoC over WoW? Of course 11 million does not equal 300,000, so I digress.

I don't see how you're getting that from what he said. Age of Conan (if that's what AoC stands for) doesn't have the quality art direction that World of WarCraft does. If art direction trumps technology, World of WarCraft still wins.

Gorgeous video game art style in a hopefully awesome game:

http://www.offworld.com/2009/08/lost...

I think this can often depend on why people play games. I usually play games to escape real life, not reality. For example, I may wish I was the brave soldier saving my whole platoon (CoD), or that I am allowed to drive a million dollar race car (GTR, Forza, etc). I may want to explore the criminal underground (Mafia II) or pretend I am a soldier of fortune making my way in the world with violence (Far Cry 2). The more closer these escapes look to real life, the more I will feel I am really acting as that character, and the greater the satisfaction I will draw from the game.

And on the reverse of that, graphics don't really draw me in on the experiences that indulge in some kind of fantasy. I liked the gameplay in Halo, and if it had been cel-shaded it wouldn't have made a difference to me. I played Crackdown for about a million hours, and I never once lamented the lack of realistic visuals, because "realism" and "8 foot tall super cop who throws semi-trucks" don't really intersect.

I think that developers should be applauded most when they create a visual style that suits their subject matter like a glove. It's not a matter of "gameplay trumps graphics" or vice versa. The real challenge is in recognizing the needs of the game you want people to play, and bringing that to fruition. An immersive experience in Hyrule should probably look different than one in Liberty City, etc.

adam.greenbrier wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:
Elysium wrote:

My point is simply that art direction can and usually will trump technology, which is why I think a game like World of WarCraft has better visuals than Everquest II.

All things being equal, doesn't this mean you should be digging AoC over WoW? Of course 11 million does not equal 300,000, so I digress.

I don't see how you're getting that from what he said. Age of Conan (if that's what AoC stands for) doesn't have the quality art direction that World of WarCraft does. If art direction trumps technology, World of WarCraft still wins.

Okay good point, but a fine distinction. I was taking technology to mean game mechanics, and art direction to mean visuals.

But there are layers to this. Focusing on "visuals", AoC may have better graphics, but the art direction is different from WoW. But taking it like that leaves "art direction" as a more subjective quality than objective.

Taking art direction as simply artistic portrayal and not visual technology, something that sticks in my head is a game like "Freedom Force". Relatively simply technology (by today's standards) but outstanding art direction. Or to compare apples to apples, the forthcoming "Borderlands" against "Fallout 3".

edit: Got to rambling...I forgot what my point was

Nevin73 wrote:

Okay good point, but a fine distinction. I was taking technology to mean game mechanics, and art direction to mean visuals.

But there are layers to this. Focusing on "visuals", AoC may have better graphics, but the art direction is different from WoW. But taking it like that leaves "art direction" as a more subjective quality than objective.

Wasn't that a main point of the article?

I thought it was.

Just look at The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker (ooo, pretty and exciting!) vs. Twilight Princess (:yawn:). Art direction > fancy graphics any day in my book.

Is there a corollary between the rise of the indie game movement and the early history of the avant garde art movement? It seems to me that indie games are really pushing the envelope visually compared to the big studios.

Mixolyde wrote:

Gorgeous video game art style in a hopefully awesome game:

http://www.offworld.com/2009/08/lost...

That's lovely.

Another visually interesting game coming up (eventually) is Love by Eskil Steenberg. If you're looking for a Monet, Elysium, he might be your man. If he ever finishes the thing.

I still think Guildwars beats WoW in that respect, but I guess that's just my taste...

There is only so much you can do with a given engine before someone uses its possibilities to their best effects. Once I've seen something that is realy great, a game with the same technologie can be equaly great, but not realy superior. To be dazzled again, I need some new "bling".

Take music as an example. There is no real progress in technologie anymore. Therefore, the score is either great or lame, but never a giant leap forward.

That's probably the reason why I still have such fond memories of "Outcast", since it's the best game based on voxels; This technologie hasn't been improved yet, and I'm anxious to see what ID will acomplish with its new engine, which will make heavy use of voxels again.

Is there a corollary between the rise of the indie game movement and the early history of the avant garde art movement?

Yes, I started to talk about this but it looked like it could be a whole article on its own.

Another visually interesting game coming up (eventually) is Love by Eskil Steenberg. If you're looking for a Monet, Elysium, he might be your man. If he ever finishes the thing.

This is actually what started me thinking about the topic. More on that ... later.

"I don’t want to flirt too strongly with the video-games-as-art-debate, and I definitely don’t want my next game to be set at some Victorian lakeside picnic or in a desert of melting timepieces, at least not without a good video game conceit for being there which probably has to do with blowing stuff up."

I'm kind-of stumbling over this sentence -- are you afraid of being called arty-farty? My gods man, I wish we have Victorian lakeside picnics without stuff blowing up - I am tired of things blowing up and 'things that belong in games'. Being a huge supporter of the artistic progression in games I feel slightly annoyed that frequently any time 'art' is mentioned some snide remark has to be made against established art, as-if we cannot possibly endure mention of art without being relieved by the suggestion that whilst it is very nice we certainly don't want it in our games.

I'm absolutely not saying anything in favour of or against the rest of your article, just wanting to say that I think it bad sportsmanship to go into the reflex of following any suggestion of art not with "which could be nice" but with the suggestion that somehow it is silly if not involving explosions. I know it is your opinion but surely you can word it more considerate in art article where you claim you want to see something you 'have never seen before' and inset a picture of Monet without attributing it to him.

This gets a big "it depends" from me. Of course the tools for visuals are just that: tools. They can be used well or poorly. But better tools can give those responsible for "art direction" a lot more freedom.

And, in terms of game development overall, I think the push for realism, a noble goal in its own right (but not the only goal) also helped more stylized titles better achieve their goals. Elysium mentioned Braid, which is a case in point: it used a number of very "realistic" textures, but then placed them behind (and less often on) an older console aesthetic.

Besides, there are certainly times when I'd like to see someone's "realistic" take on, say, an orc rather than WoW's impossibly-jawed monstrosities. So pushing for photo-realistic accuracy still has its draws, even if it should never become the only standard, as you say. I want both realism AND whacked-out stylization, but I want them in the right balance for whatever the individual game demands.

Good article and absolutely agree art direction is a key factor and does wonders to keep games relevant and playable for more years. Also once we reach the Monet an Picasso era how long till we get to the era: my 5 year old boy could have made that

I wish I were a graphics junkie, but my poor aging rig won't accommodate such luxuries. I think it makes me the exact opposite of a graphics junkie, savoring the gameplay of modern games like Fallout 3 despite the bare-bones visuals that I'm forced to endure. When was the last time you played a game at 800x600 with the texture resolution set to its lowest setting? Welcome to my world.

This isn't to say that I don't appreciate games that look good. Rather, I think that the problem is that game designers have a tendency to conflate art direction with technological capability. I'm reminded of the early days of 3-D, where some developers invariably replaced high-quality 2-D sprites with blocky 3-D models. There's nothing wrong with pushing the technological envelope, but technology by itself doesn't drive the game experience. Just look back at the classics, and you'll find that the thing that makes them good is seldom the visuals.

- Alan

(There's a move to recognize the distinction between "representational" and "abstract" games, where the former depict something relatively world-like and the latter do not. It is only when you reach the very representational end of the spectrum that you really have to worry about "verisimilitude" at all. )

Another good example here is Team Fortress 2 by Valve. In interviews and commentaries the designers stated they intentionally made the art style cartoonish instead of pushing for ultra-realism for the players to focus more on game play than having players just wandering around going, "oooh, pretty". Add in silliness like your character pointing at someone, saying, "Pow!", and the other guy falls dead with an overdramatic death scene has made this a game that proves FUN trumps technology.

grobstein wrote:

(There's a move to recognize the distinction between "representational" and "abstract" games, where the former depict something relatively world-like and the latter do not. It is only when you reach the very representational end of the spectrum that you really have to worry about "verisimilitude" at all. )

There's a pretty approachable article on this topic over at Jesper Juul's site, for those who are interested.

Amid recent games Bioshock stood out for me for its art direction. The ruined art-deco city was simply beautiful. The actual game mechanic (fight, upgrades, fight, health, fight, etc), is more competent than brilliant.

What makes it good is the story, particularly the way it is told to you. What makes it brilliant is the art direction.

Jeroen Stout wrote:

I feel slightly annoyed that frequently any time 'art' is mentioned some snide remark has to be made against established art, as-if we cannot possibly endure mention of art without being relieved by the suggestion that whilst it is very nice we certainly don't want it in our games.

Ely sometimes tries to pretend he's low-brow, but we all know it's a front. His brows are actually quite high, he just didn't want to distract himself by meandering into that (rather well-worn) debate.

I think it's worth noting that visually intriguing game art — irrespective of the "most realistic" or "best" graphic engine (Crysis) — is typically indicative of the overall merit of a game. When I look at screenshots or concept art from upcoming titles like Machinarium or the hilariously code-named "Epic Mickey", I get excited to play those games. I don't think that's simply because I want to stare at pretty art for a while, but because my brain has created an association between interesting graphics and overall gameplay enjoyability. Maybe developers who take the time to create a fitting, holistic art concept also use extra time and care when crafting gameplay, physics, etc. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any recent game whose visual style promised entertainment or craft that the game failed to deliver.